Gwisin - Vengeance and Take the Hit (and Manipulative)

[Paddywhack]

Thought I'd bring this over here as I'm reading a lot of differing opinions on discord and the forums about this interaction. There are those that feel the FAQ applies and Vengeance does not happen, and others that say that Vengeance is not covered by the FAQ and will happen. 

Here is the FAQ:

12. * If a model has multiple Abilities that resolve after it is targeted (such as Terrifying (X), Protected (X), or another model’s Take the Hit Ability) can it resolve more than one?*

a) Yes. When a model is targeted all effects that would resolve are generated at the same time and can be resolved in any order (as per Simultaneous Effects on Pg 34). However, some effects may change the target of the Action, in which case that new model is not targeted and as such those effects aren’t generated a second time. Additionally, abilities such as Manipulative that affect Actions that target “this model” only apply to those Actions that are still targeting that model. For example, if a model with Take the Hit changes the target of an Action to itself, it would not benefit from any of the initial target’s Abilities such as Manipulative that require the Action to target “this model”, nor could it benefit from more of its own abilities that resolve when it is targeted (such as Terrifying).

It seems that the World Series Vassal has ruled that Manipulative of the new TTH model would happen and by extension, so would Vengeance. It's long, so I won't copy it all here, but here is the link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MAzIgYPIJAIJvitegXtiUxSYpe-odMu7DkWiNMLBE1U/edit#heading=h.9m8bihl7g5kn

I think I fall on the side of the FAQ taking precedence as it pretty clearly states the new model is "not targeted" and Vengeance says 'Action that targeted'. I'm not sure about manipulative as it uses the word 'target', but it uses it as a verb so seems to mean the initial Targeting step.

I think what we need is a capital Target to cover the initial step of targeting a model and how that applies throughout the Action vs the lowercase 'target', which just tells us who is going to suffer effects of the Action. 

It sure seems like this one is going to be a 'discuss ahead of time and agree' until Wyrd gives a FAQ for their FAQ.  

[Adran]

19 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Note this has implications for onslaught, coordinated attack, and quick reflexes.

Presumably camp 1 has onslaught targeting (same target) as having to target the original model (not the one that took the hit?)

And quick reflexes can target the take the hit model?

Or am I not understanding the noun/verb distinction?

I can't see a reason why it has an implication, none of them refer to the model that was originally targeted they all refer to the "same model" or a "different model" and at the time you resolve the trigger, you will read it as the model that is currently the target is the model it refers to. 

Edit- plus if you look back at rules threads you and I both gave the same answer in June to that question ( well just quick reflexes was in the question). 

[Paddywhack]

17 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Note this has implications for onslaught, coordinated attack, and quick reflexes.

Presumably camp 1 has onslaught targeting (same target) as having to target the original model (not the one that took the hit?)

And quick reflexes can target the take the hit model?

Or am I not understanding the noun/verb distinction?

And I am in no way a rules master. I'm just trying to see where the wind is blowing as I'm reading a lot of different opinions on the matter.

Don't take my interpretation of verb/noun as law. I think that seems like the intent of the FAQ and rules in general, but Wyrd didn't really make that distinction clear.  I think that type of reading fits the FAQ and doesn't seem to break anything else (yet). It's what makes the most sense to me, but I'm fine playing however the group I play with rules (until Wyrd does).

I do think that Gwisin with Vengeance +2 that works on TTH is pretty brutal for a 6SS Versatile minion. Especially with extra wounds and Incorporeal. Seems too good to be true.... 

[Angelshard]

@Paddywhack Isn't that the whole reason for taking it though? Other than Take the hit it doesn't really bring anything to justify its cost, and if it didn't proc vengeance on top its a pretty steep price for that. At least in my opinion. 

[fire5tone]

13 minutes ago, Angelshard said:

@Paddywhack Isn't that the whole reason for taking it though? Other than Take the hit it doesn't really bring anything to justify its cost, and if it didn't proc vengeance on top its a pretty steep price for that. At least in my opinion. 

No, it justifies his cost handily even without tth veangence, average stats while having extra health *and* incorps already really good, meaning you have to do a 4 damage attack to do more to it than it does to you along with tear off a bite or puncture on it's not-at-all shabby attacks and trailer of gore... Trail of gore is pretty good anti scheme

Super good package even without tth workin

[Adran]

1 hour ago, Angelshard said:

@Paddywhack Isn't that the whole reason for taking it though? Other than Take the hit it doesn't really bring anything to justify its cost, and if it didn't proc vengeance on top its a pretty steep price for that. At least in my opinion. 

Having a body guard that you don't want to target has some advantages. If it didn't have Vengence +2 then it would probably be the target of all attacks in that area, and be quickly wiped out. Since it does have vengence +2 I would be much less likely to target it, meaning it is more likely to be able to choose when to take the hit, and spread your wounds more efficiently. 

Its already more wounds than it costs and with a good defensive ability in Incorporeal and average stats to make it fairly tanky for its cost, and certainly the Urami model most capable to just hold a spot. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

Another angle to consider is sometimes the designers make a mistake.

Even if a model was designed or playtested for a certain combo, that doesn't mean the combo works under the rules (although I think the next FAQ will clear it up).

[Angelshard]

Might just be me underestimating the model. I guess it just makes sense to me that it has vengeance +2 instead of +1 to make its take the hit extra nasty. 

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

On 8/23/2021 at 6:13 AM, Adran said:

The fact an action only has 1 targeting step is irrelevant as far as I can see because none of the steps that matter reference the targeting step. 

Those abilities don't get activated in the targeting step, they get activated when a model targets a model. Those are 2 very different circumstances and if the abilities said they happen at the end (beginning would be awkward as you don't have a target at that point)of the targeting step, that is a set time point, but they don't, they say when a model is targeted. 

The targeting step matters a great deal. "If the Action requires a target, it must be declared during this step." That is the only time a model ever actively targets a model, the rest is when a model passively targets a model. If Terrifying is not performed during the targeting step, then it is performed in the "modify the duel" step... after soul stones are declared. The latter is obviously not correct (unless I've been playing wrong there), so the former has to be correct... unless there is a step in Action/Duel resolution which is not in the rules. This is based on if you should be applying the rules in "as read" order much like resolving an actions effects, so I can see disagreement with it. I guess I just don't see how abilities triggered by a model becoming the active target are not resolved in the targeting step, and how abilities resolved outside the targeting step are not resolved with passive targeting.

Also, shouldn't "when it is targeted" only be considered during the targeting step as well? Vengeance does not fire off "when targeted" like Terrifying, so I think one has to ignore the "when" in the FAQ to disallow Vengeance just as much as one has to ignore "targeted" to allow Vengeance (meaning both are equally correct).

Honestly I think the issue with the FAQ clarity is not that people are ignoring the use of the word "targeted", but because it can be read as the active or passive form of targeted, which will cause two completely different conclusions. For example; when TTH happens, the target is swapped from the model the action actively targeted to a new target, but after resolution the Action had passively targeted the new target after TTH's resolution. Maybe saying when declared the target of an action instead of targeted would have fixed this issue, but I think the OP was right that a "Targeted" game term would do wonders for clarity in many areas.

—Edit—

I really think the FAQ was specifically trying to say that abilities with “After this model is targeted…” or “After an enemy model targets this model…” language, like Terrifying and Protected, which do not trigger for the new model since those occur at the time of targeting, or when targeted.

[Adran]

On 8/29/2021 at 4:40 AM, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

The targeting step matters a great deal. "If the Action requires a target, it must be declared during this step." That is the only time a model ever actively targets a model, the rest is when a model passively targets a model. If Terrifying is not performed during the targeting step, then it is performed in the "modify the duel" step... after soul stones are declared. The latter is obviously not correct (unless I've been playing wrong there), so the former has to be correct... unless there is a step in Action/Duel resolution which is not in the rules. This is based on if you should be applying the rules in "as read" order much like resolving an actions effects, so I can see disagreement with it. I guess I just don't see how abilities triggered by a model becoming the active target are not resolved in the targeting step, and how abilities resolved outside the targeting step are not resolved with passive targeting.

Also, shouldn't "when it is targeted" only be considered during the targeting step as well? Vengeance does not fire off "when targeted" like Terrifying, so I think one has to ignore the "when" in the FAQ to disallow Vengeance just as much as one has to ignore "targeted" to allow Vengeance (meaning both are equally correct).

Honestly I think the issue with the FAQ clarity is not that people are ignoring the use of the word "targeted", but because it can be read as the active or passive form of targeted, which will cause two completely different conclusions. For example; when TTH happens, the target is swapped from the model the action actively targeted to a new target, but after resolution the Action had passively targeted the new target after TTH's resolution. Maybe saying when declared the target of an action instead of targeted would have fixed this issue, but I think the OP was right that a "Targeted" game term would do wonders for clarity in many areas.

—Edit—

I really think the FAQ was specifically trying to say that abilities with “After this model is targeted…” or “After an enemy model targets this model…” language, like Terrifying and Protected, which do not trigger for the new model since those occur at the time of targeting, or when targeted.

I think you missed my point. Or I have missed your point. 

The targeting step only matters in that it is the step when the rules tell us to target something. None of the abilities we are looking at refer to the step at all. I'm not saying the things don't happen in this step, I am saying that the reason the happen in this step is just because this was the step when a model declared a target. 

If a model had a trigger which read "when resolving you may target a different model instead of the original target" then all the targeting steps would occur then, because that was when a model was targeted. 

Its a little like Pervasive metabolism. According to the rule book, the end phase is the only phase that you take poison damage. But there are a variety of models that will cause poison damage at other times. And the fact the poison damage doesn't occur in the end step doesn't make the ability work any differently because the ability doesn't actually refer to a timing step. 

The whole sentence about ignoring the "when" doesn't make sense to me, and I can't see what point you are trying to make with it. The question starts off answering "can you resolve multiple "when this model is targeted abilities". I believe the FAQ then goes on to answer a different question, which was really the question it wanted to answer of "if I switch the target do I get a second terrifying test (etc)?" and explains why the answer is No. And the answer it gives for a no is not because of timing (because I believe there isn't a timing answer that works) but because the new model was not targeted.  And if the new model was not targeted to allow a terrifying test, then it was not targeted to allow manipulative or vengeance. 

On 8/29/2021 at 4:40 AM, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

I really think the FAQ was specifically trying to say that abilities with “After this model is targeted…” or “After an enemy model targets this model…” language, like Terrifying and Protected, which do not trigger for the new model since those occur at the time of targeting, or when targeted.

I don't think that was what the FAQ was trying to say. I think it was trying to show that there is a difference between actively targeting and something else becoming the target. If it was a timing issue then it should have answered it with regards to timing. It doesn't answer it with regards to timing, it answers why it doesn't happen in terms of terminology. The new model doesn't apply terrifying "because it wasn't targeted" not because it was targeted too late for terrifying. 

I can't make a timing argument work for why a model wouldn't cause terrifying to happen, but would allow vengeance to happen. Was the new model targeted? if so then effects that happen when a model was targeted should happen. You seem to have added a little step into the declare target step that is the resolve abilities that are caused by targeting, and decided that this step is the reason that you don't get to suffer Terrifying twice. (at least that's the only way I can see to reach the conclusions you have)

 

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

6 minutes ago, Adran said:

And the answer it gives for a no is not because of timing (because I believe there isn't a timing answer that works)..

You seem to have added a little step into the declare target step that is the resolve abilities that are caused by targeting, and decided that this step is the reason that you don't get to suffer Terrifying twice. (at least that's the only way I can see to reach the conclusions you have)

 

First, we agree that there isn't a timing answer to make two terrifying tests work because they happen at different points in time when abilities like TTH or Protected occur after a model is targeted, or declared the target of an action. Some players are new enough, or the rules are complex enough, that this may not be easily understood by all. Declaring a target and becoming the target may seem like the same thing, but timing keeps them from actually being the same thing. Using only the core rules, I can only read the answer as clarifying the timing above. Only by adding the concept that targeted==Targeted, which is not a game term, can I come to the FAQ answering something else. 

Also, I have not added a step. Many abilities require you to resolve effects during a step in which the step does not explicitly say so. "when targeted" is easiest to resolve in the targeted step, because it is when something is targeted. Otherwise, when is a "when targeted" ability resolved? Terrifying will need to be resolved during a step between Targeting and Perform Duels, or terrifying is resolved during Modifying the Duel AFTER soul stones are declared (that is when effects prior to a duel are resolved).